Criminal Law
1. Criminal Law v. Civil Law
-a lot in common -aims to shape conduct-to prevent harm; 2.crim. law punishes in a degree much more than civil law; 3. more moral condemnation from the community than civil law; 4. tort is against the individual where as crim law is against the state
Limits
void for vagueness doctrine
The rule of lenity. The courts will find for the defendant if the statute is confusing.
a crim statute must be considered void if the statute is too vague because it does not give notice (5th and 14th amendments)
malum in se -crimes of moral turpitude–murder, theft Mala Prohibita-only prohibited by legislation–speeding
c. level of crime
-Misdemeanor-any crime punishable by less than a year in prison in a mis.
-Felony-punishable by more than a year in prison – need grand jury indictment
Basic elements of all crimes
1. guilty act; 2. guilty mind; 3. necessary attendant circumstances; 4. Causation; 5. absence of defenses
Reasons for Punishment:
1. Deterrence; 2. Rehabilitation; 3. Retribution
2 theories of Punishment
Utilitarianism – value is determines by the utility of it
Forms of Utilitarianism
Deterrence: General is a message to the rest of society that crime does not pay. Specific Deterrence: Punished to deter them from committing another crime
Rehabilitation/ Reform: Believe that the criminal law can prevent future crime by rehabilitating the person.
Retributivism
Infliction of punishment is justified because criminal’s wrongdoing has created an imbalance in the social order that must be addressed by action against the criminal. Believe that a criminal should be punished regardless if it results in a reduction in crime.
Moral Retribution – it is morally right to dislike criminals
1. Rationales-It Prevents vigilante justice-Dignifies the victim
2. Equalizing Retribution-Punishment is a means of securing a moral balance in society
Comparing the two
Utilitarianism-Looks forward
Retributivism-Looks backward
Utilitarianism (focuses on society)-Human are hedonistic and calculating
Retributivism (focuses on individual)-Humans have free will and choose to violate society’s norms
ACTUS REUS(Voluntary Act that causes social harm)
-A voluntary act involves the use of the human mind; an involuntary act involves the use of the human brain, without the aid of the mind
-One should not assume an act is involuntary because the actor is unaware of what she is doing as she is doing it. – Ex. A chain smoker lighting up a cigarette “without thinking”
-Multiple Personality Disorder – Generally not a valid defense – “we will not begin to parcel criminal accountability out among the various inhabitants of the mind.”
Involuntary Act/Seizure: Prior seizures with a failure to take medication can be prosecuted for negligence. It is sufficient that the D’s conduct included a voluntary act – getting behind the wheel of a car. D is not guilty of having a seizure, but getting behind the wheel with prior knowledge.
Rationale: Primarily based around retributivist theory – criminal punishment, with its attendant pain, stigma, and formal condemnation of the offender, should only be imposed on those who deserve it – meaning those who act as a result of free choice.
Martin v. State
Appellant was convicted of being drunk on a public highway after law enforcement arrested him and took him onto the highway.
Holding: Since the appellant did not voluntarily place himself on the highway, he cannot be convicted of the offense.
Section 2.01 Requirement of Voluntary Act; Omission as Basis of Liability; Possession as an Act.
(1) A person in not guilty of an offense unless his liability is based on conduct that includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act of which he is physically capable
(2) The following are not voluntary acts within the meaning of this Section:
a. a reflex or convulsion;
b. a bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep;
c. conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion;
d. a bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual. Habitual or conscious in like driving to school and you always changed lanes a certain point and one day not really paying attention you hit someone.
State v. Boleyn:
Prisoner left prison. Defense proves that it was not intentional escape; he was intoxicated with pills and beer. While unconscious was “carried away.” Actus reas here in that someone took him out and he had no action on his own to escape, must prove that he was taken out, which would be an involuntary act.
Robinson v. State of California
California makes it a criminal defense to be addicted to narcotics. Issue: Is law constitutional
Holding: Law violated 14th and 8th amendments. State can prosecute for use, but not for “status” as an addict.
Omissions – In general there is no duty to act
Jones v. United States
Green gave birth to a child out of wedlock and out of embarrassment gave her baby to the D to take care. While under D’s care, the baby is found at ten months of age to be very malnourished and living in squalor. The baby is taken to the hospital and eats repeatedly without difficulty, but soon dies from malnutrition. D is convicted of involuntary manslaughter, but appeals.
Issue: Did the trial error for failing to instruct the jury that it must find that appellant was under legal obligation to provide food and necessities to the victim before finding her guilty of manslaughter for failing to provide them?
Holding: The jury instructions failed to instruct the jury that a legal duty was a required element for conviction /reverse and remanded. -Jury instruction need to be asked for
Failure to act creates criminal liability – Duty:
1. Statute imposes duty (failure to stop after a hit and run) 2. Status relationship to another (parent does not get medical attention for a sick child) 3. Contractual obligation (Lifeguard)
4. Voluntary assumption care (begin to help an accident victim, you cannot stop) 5. Creation of the peril (rapist) 6. Control conduct of others (employer over employee when they are doing the duty of work),
7. Duty of a landowner (provide safety for those he invites on the property)
Once a duty is found: 1. Possibility of performing, 2. Causation
M.P.C. §2.01(3) provides as follows:
(3) Liability for the commission of an offense may not be based on an omission unaccompanied by action unless:
(a) the omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense; or
(b) a duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law.
– You do not need to save someone if you would put yourself in danger. If you begin to help someone and do not fulfill the help you could be liable. The duty changes when you begin to aide the other, you would need to make some sort of contact.
3 elements of Omission
1. Duty
2. Possibility of Performing the Act
3. Causation
-The omission must be proved to be the cause to the cause of the death
Failure to act
-a misdemeanor in the jurisdictions that enforce it
MENS REA (Guilty Mind)
-Criminal Intent
–proven by circumstantial evidence
–morally wrong to convict somebody who did something by accident (comes from retributivism)
–wrong to convict somebody who did something by accident becau
requirement, you must show legislative intent. Government showed that it was strict liability because of the public welfare and it is regulatory and not strictly criminal. Government’s intent wasn’t to punish the people that had the weapons, it was the duty of the person in possession to know what was required of them.
– Public welfare/regulatory
– Legislative intent
– Nature of the product regulated – does it keep a large number of people safe
– Penalties (harsh v light) – light more likely to be OK to not have mens rea
Strict liability laws involving non-public welfare offenses 1) result in harsh penalties, 2) usually result from malum en se crimes. Ex. Statutory rape
MPC §2.02 – “attempted a bold assault on strict liability”
-Except for crimes considered “violations,” – “crimes” cannot be considered strict liable crimes.
Intoxication
People v. Atkins
D went to the Ponderosa Sky Ranch to hang-out and drink beer with his brother. He asserted that he started a fire to clear brush and that it got out of hand. The fire proceeded to burn a couple of miles of land. D was charged with arson and the judge said the fact he was voluntarily intoxicated was not a defense to arson or the other crimes. D was convicted and appealed saying that evidence of intoxication was admissible to show he lacked the requisite mental state for arson. Circuit Court reversed.
Holding: This is a general intent crime so pursuant to statute it is not allowed. It is a general intent crime because it was impulsive w/out regard to the harm it would cause.
INTOXICATION & DRUGGED CONDITION
– Position that intoxication or drugged condition can negative the mens rea for a “specific intent” crime, but does not negative the mens rea of a “general intent” crime.
MPC §2.08 – Intoxication
(1) Except as provided in subsection (4) of this section, intoxication of the actor is not a defense unless it negatives an element of the offense.
(2) When recklessness establishes an element of the offense, if the actor due to self-induces intoxication, is unaware of the risk of which he would have been aware had he been sober, such awareness us immaterial
–recklessness is not a defense
(3) Intoxication does not, in itself, constitute mental disease within the meaning of 4.01
(4) Intoxication that (a) is not self-induced or (b) is pathological is an affirmative defense if by reason of such intoxication the actor at the time of his conduct lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate its criminality (wrongfulness) or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law
For reckless and negligent intoxication cannot be a defense, but for knowingly and purposely it can
Mistake of Fact
New Jersey v. Sexton
D is messing around with his friend and another friend. There was a spring missing from the gun’s magazine, which prevented the other bullets form going into the chamber after the first bullet was discharged. Victim told
